The Information Systems (IS) research is positioned to study the enabling technologies for businesses and societies, especially the socio-technical relationship that emerges ¹, both from the perspective of economic, organizational, and behavioral theories, as well as the design of new artifacts that can serve organizational and societal purposes ^2,3. In this regard, Rai (2018), the former editor-in-chief of MIS Quarterly identifies the four following traditions or paradigms of IS research with the respective sample issues/topics, and suggests that moving forward, we can blend these paradigms to address and understand new problems:

1. Behavioral Science Paradigm e.g., IS use, trust, and individual motivations, cognitions
2. Design Science Paradigm e.g., Evaluate and create new IT artifacts
3. Economics Paradigm e.g., IS value
4. Organizational Paradigm e.g., IS capabilities, governance

The discussion on the identity of IS as an independent discipline highlights a number of directions, advice, and considerations for scholars. First, Information Systems are entrusted with the understanding of interactions among people and technological artifacts. Either of these sides is studied in neighboring fields like Social Sciences and Engineering, whereas IS is best equipped to study and create knowledge about the rich phenomenon that happens between people and technology ⁵. Moreover, the social and material are to be studied simultaneously in IS research, using a “relational ontology” instead of a substantialist approach ⁶. In other words, we have to focus on how IS is augmented in social settings, whilst looking at people, communities, and technology at the same time, instead of analyzing the effects of one side on the other.

Second, the inclusion of IT artifact in any Information Systems study is essential. IT artifact refers to the application of computing (hardware/software) and networking resources to enable or support a task that happens within an organizational structure and context ². The managerial, technological, operational, and anthropological considerations in designing, implementing, and using this artifact are what nurture our research, and bring a unique identity to IS as a discipline. Orlikowski and Iacono (2001) categorize IS studies given their approach toward technology. These studies have either a tool, proxy, or ensemble view, or understand it only in a computational and nominal sense. The IT artifact as an independent element is missing in these studies, and without that, IS research would fall off one of its edges to neighboring disciplines. It is a fact that usually,

“processes such as innovation and change are conceptualized largely in socio-economic terms, while “things” are not considered or are treated as self-evident ⁸.” ⁷

Third, and after confirming the IT artifact as a central element of the field, we should avoid assuming the artifact (or technology in general) as a black-box, analyzing it through surrogate measures and identifying it with fixed characteristics. Technologies are designed, shaped and used by individuals ⁸, and within different contexts (e.g., industries, communities) with different types of users they behave differently. Moreover, technologies have a dynamic nature since they are constantly refined and renewed by inventions and new users. And finally, any technological artifact is composed of multiple components that can’t necessarily be abstracted in a whole, e.g., different nodes of the internet. Sometimes we need to consider the links and interrelationships among technological elements, as well as their complex relationship with humans and communities. Especially, adapting information systems in the context of social computing, we shall be cognizant about the different sorts of human-machine combinations ⁹ and how computing is personalized for each user, basically changing the nature of technology and interactions experienced by that user (Orlikowski & Iacono, 2001; Weber, 2003).

Finally, and most interestingly, Information systems are understood and employed as the “representation” of individuals and collectives. As Ron Weber (editor-in-chief of MIS Quarterly from 2001-2004) suggests¹⁰, representation is the core phenomenon in Information Systems research. Each IS, portrays an underlying real-world system so that we can avoid observing the real complicated phenomenon and generate organizable and understandable information about the system anyway. He argues that representation is the “raison d’etre” of IS scholarship and practice:

“By observing the behavior of an information system, we obviate the need to observe the behavior of the system it represents. We thereby avoid having to incur the costs associated with observing the represented system. For example, with an order-entry information system, we track states of and state changes in customers, which means that we do not have to consult with each customer individually to determine the goods or services they wish to purchase.” ¹⁰

These perspectives can equip MIS scholars with far more innovative and creative ideas compared to the regime of observing old organizational IT systems, and striving to build marginally different measures of productivity. It is time for the classic era of information systems research to evolve into a new understanding of our digital world: To represent people and technological artifacts with better models and search for solutions toward augmenting technology, computation, information, and intelligence in the social world. At both levels of observation and implementation. Well, Metaverse is already around, and not only we “the people” are being modeled, but also the virtual interactions are entering our lives. As these two pathways converge, the future is unveiled. The same goes for many other current technologies like Social Media, Wearables, IoT, and Sensors. Apparently, It’s usually too late, when social scientists wake up to the fact that technology is not the job of engineers alone!

Bibliography:
1. Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X. & Elbanna, A. The Sociotechnical Axis of Cohesion for the IS Discipline: Its Historical Legacy and its Continued Relevance. MISQ 43, 695–719 (2019).
2. Benbasat, I. & Zmud, R. W. The Identity Crisis within the Is Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties. MIS Quarterly 27, 183 (2003).
3. Parameswaran, M. & Whinston, A. Research Issues in Social computing. JAIS 8, 336–350 (2007).
4. Rai, A. Editor’s Comments: Beyond Outdated Labels: The Blending of IS Research Traditions. MIS Quarterly 42, iii–vi (2018).
5. Lee, A. S. Inaugural Editor’s Comments: The MIS Field, the Publication Process, and the Future Course of MIS Quarterly. MIS Quarterly 23, v–xi (1999).
6. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Galliers, R. D., Henfridsson, O., Newell, S. & Vidgen, R. The Sociomateriality of Information Systems: Current Status, Future Directions. MIS Quarterly 38, 809–830 (2014).
7. Orlikowski, W. J. & Iacono, C. S. Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Systems Research 12, 121–134 (2001).
8. Pinch, T. J. & Bijker, W. E. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other. Soc Stud Sci 14, 399–441 (1984).
9. Evans, J. Social Computing Unhinged. J. Soc. Comput. 1, 1–13 (2020).
10. Weber, R. Editor’s Comments:  Still Desperately Seeking the IT Artifact. MIS Quarterly 27, iii–xi (2003).